The European Union is insisting that natural gas delivered to member states via Türkiye under new supply agreements must not be of Russian origin.

German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche said after an official visit to Ankara that “Türkiye understands that the EU attaches great importance to ending the supply of raw materials originating from Russia and accepts this reality.”

Reiche added that Turkish officials had made it clear that replacing supplies from Russia could not be achieved overnight, either economically or in terms of available alternative sources.

As of June 17, a ban on pipeline natural gas imports from Russia under short-term contracts signed more than a year ago entered into force across the European Union.

The measure was approved by the Council of the European Union and the European Parliament at the end of last year. In January 2025, EU member states also voted to phase out Russian gas completely by 2027. Under that decision, member states are required to verify the origin of gas supplies before authorizing deliveries.

Meanwhile, Swiss-based company Nord Stream 2 AG, the operator of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, has launched legal action challenging the regulation imposing the ban on Russian gas imports.

Türkiye, for its part, is continuing negotiations with Gazprom on natural gas supplies for the period after 2026, as existing contracts are approaching expiration.

Energy and Natural Resources Minister Alparslan Bayraktar previously said the parties had yet to reach agreement on potential shipment volumes and the duration of any new contracts.

In December 2025, Ankara extended by one year two agreements with Gazprom covering gas deliveries through the TurkStream and Blue Stream pipelines.

Türkiye is seeking to reduce Russia’s share of its gas supply mix. Russia’s share of Türkiye’s natural gas imports has already fallen below 40%.

As part of its energy diversification strategy, Ankara plans to replace part of Russian gas imports with supplies from the United States and Central Asia.

Bayraktar previously said that despite US calls to abandon Russian energy resources, Türkiye would continue purchasing natural gas from Russia.

“We cannot tell our citizens there is no gas available. We have agreements with Russia. Winter is approaching. We need gas from Russia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan,” Bayraktar said.

Venture capital funds are pouring into the defense technology market, driven in part by the wars in Ukraine and Iran, with drones, autonomous vessels and battlefield artificial intelligence emerging as some of this year’s most sought-after investment areas.

According to PitchBook data provided to the Financial Times, startups have raised $12.3 billion since the beginning of the year.

The figure is nearly double that recorded during the same period last year and has already surpassed the full-year total for 2025, which stood at $9.95 billion.

The surge comes as recent conflicts highlight growing demand for a new generation of weapons systems that are cheaper and faster to produce.

However, concerns are also emerging that parts of the market may be overheating, as some investors become willing to pay increasingly high valuations on expectations that governments will continue expanding defense spending.

“We are probably witnessing the most significant change yet in the way wars are fought,” said Daniel Rudnicki Schlumberger, head of security and resilience initiatives for Europe, the Middle East and Asia at JPMorgan. He added that valuations had risen sharply as investors recognized that the sector represented “a long-term need.”

Shonnel Malani, managing partner at private equity group Advent International, argued that although concerns about some elevated valuations were “very valid,” the factors underpinning demand would remain in place even after current conflicts come to an end.

In March, Advent announced plans to invest up to $1 billion in next-generation defense technologies.

Malani said:

“The underlying driver of why we need defense technology and these defense capabilities… is very real. This is not hype. There is a broader range of sophisticated technologies that can be used against us, and we have to meet that challenge.”

The Financial Times reported in May that German drone startup Helsing, backed by Daniel Ek, had raised $1.2 billion at a valuation of roughly $18 billion.

Another German company, Stark, is also in talks to raise at least €300 million, a transaction that would value the “kamikaze” drone manufacturer at approximately €2.5 billion.

“This is a very active market… We are working on solutions that align with the long-term budgets of European militaries,” said Benoit Fosseprez, general partner at investment group AVP.

AVP recently launched a new €500 million European defense technology fund together with venture capital firm Earlybird.

US Vice President JD Vance on Thursday criticised Israeli officials for refusing to support Washington’s nuclear agreement with Iran, defending the newly signed memorandum of understanding and urging Israel to back the deal.

Vance accused members of the Israeli government of failing to appreciate the value of American support and defended the agreement during a press conference at the White House.

Referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “Bibi,” Vance told reporters: “You’ve seen some people in Bibi’s cabinet attack the agreement and, in some respects, attack the President of the United States in a very personal way.” He stopped short of directly criticising Netanyahu himself.

“First of all, Trump is currently the only head of state in the world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel. And he is the head of state of the world’s superpower,” Vance said. “If I were in the cabinet of the Israeli government, I would not attack the only powerful ally I have left in the world.”

Vance noted that two-thirds of the munitions used in Israel’s defence over the past three months were manufactured in the United States and financed by American taxpayers. He said Israeli officials should reconsider the perception that the primary problem facing Israel is the US president and instead confront the realities of the situation.

The remarks were directed at Netanyahu’s coalition partners, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. Both have argued that the agreement poses a threat to Israel’s security and have called on Israel to disregard its provisions.

In an earlier interview with The New York Times, Vance said he found “the general panic in Israel a little strange,” arguing that concerns surrounding the agreement stemmed from distrust of the United States.

“It is obvious that broad segments of Israel’s political system and society are very sensitive about this agreement,” Vance said. “But I also think they have taken some misinformation about the agreement, amplified it and worked themselves into a kind of panic.”

Asked how he would respond to the ministers, Vance said: “I think my answer would be: What exactly is your proposal? You are a country of nine million people. You cannot solve every national security problem you have by killing people.”

Addressing the situation in Lebanon, Vance said hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah could continue for some time, but stressed that all parties must adhere to their commitments under the agreement. Reiterating expectations that Hezbollah halt rocket and drone attacks, he also said Israel should avoid acting without restraint in Lebanon.

Vance said the US administration expected a comprehensive ceasefire across all fronts, including Lebanon, Hezbollah and Israel. While recognising Israel’s right to self-defence, he said attacks on areas of Beirut populated by civilians were unacceptable.

“One thing that has frustrated the President at times is that it seems we are on the verge of a major breakthrough under the agreement, and then suddenly there is a large explosion in a civilian area of Beirut and many people with nothing to do with Hezbollah are killed,” Vance said. “That is unacceptable.”

Vance also addressed criticism concerning sanctions relief and funding provisions for Iran, two of the most controversial elements of the memorandum.

He said the United States had not fully lifted its blockade of Iran but had merely allowed certain transit activities in line with obligations under the early stages of the agreement. Vance added that Iran’s economy remained in severe decline.

Arguing that Iran’s industrial infrastructure had suffered extensive damage over the past three months, Vance said limited oil sales would not be sufficient to revive the Iranian economy.

He also said the pragmatic faction within Iran had prevailed in internal debates and asserted that Iran’s missile programme and nuclear facilities had been largely neutralised, leaving the situation at a level acceptable to the United States.

Israeli objections to the agreement

Meanwhile, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, voiced cautious opposition to what he described as a US willingness to allow Iran to retain some of its ballistic missiles.

Describing Iranian officials as “murderous thugs,” Leiter said Israel remained concerned that Tehran would use such missiles against its neighbours.

Leiter also argued that references to Lebanon in the memorandum were designed to protect Hezbollah. He said Israel could make no compromises on border security and would not tolerate the continued existence of the group’s military presence.

Ben Gvir responded directly to Vance’s criticism in a social media post, calling on the United States to confront Iran with the same determination it showed in fighting Nazi Germany during World War Two.

In his New York Times interview, Vance had referred specifically to “people like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich” when discussing critics of the agreement, asking: “What exactly is your proposal?”

Writing in English on X, Ben Gvir addressed Vance directly, stating: “The proposal is this: Fight the Nazis of the 21st century the way the US fought the Nazis of the 20th century.”